Replies

I admire your attempt to find a solution for the future (that parents be allowed to sue for divorce.) ...

My case may be the minority, but I can only imagine the horror of parents suing for divorce so that they can end their child's life.

Thanks for your thoughtful post.

I think you raise an interesting point, but I also think you have to remember: I am only suggesting that in the event there is no written directive, AND, as another poster said, and I now agree -- on grounds already recognized for divorce.

Now, true, my own assumption would be: the parents are taking these actions to care for their child. But, your point is valid, too, in that once parents have guardianship, they would do what they think best (again, in circumstances where there are no written directions, and grounds for divorce exist).

Parents and families make these difficult decisions each day, in private, about what is best to do when there are no written directives.

So my guess is what you have contemplated is probably already going on somewhere, right now -- but you are unaware of it in those families, since it is a highly personal and private decision in those circumstances. (It's not splashed in the newspapers each day like the Terri S case.)

Nevertheless, I still think there is value in my proposal, as modified by the poster who specified existing, legally recognized grounds for divorce, because at least that law would uphold the rights of a married, incapacitated person who is being abandoned or abused by a spouse, or, certainly in Terri's case, has a husband who is now in a new family.

If someone wants to be in a new family, and committs adultery, and now want two wives, then, we are talking about something else illegal in this country, poligamy. This was something I really didn't understand the courts overlookking in this matter. I realize Michael S did not marry his live in love and the mother of his kids, but, obviously she is not just his "friend" -- he had a new life. He should have voluntarily let Terri's parents take over her guardianship, but he didn't. And the parents suffered terribly in this situation, when they all they wanted to do was care for her -- a woman they themselves brought into this world. I just think parents everywhere understood their pain on some level.

But, your solution is always preferable - state what you want, in writing. Thanks again for your post and kind words to me.

This was something I really didn't understand the courts overlookking in this matter.

So what would you have had the court do differently--deny Mrs. Schiavo of her rights because her husband had children with another woman? Remember that the legal proceedings were held to determine what Mrs. Schiavo would have wanted and it was more than Mr. Schiavo's testimony that convinced the court that Mrs. Schiavo wouldn't have wanted her body to be kept going in her state. The Schindlers made the mistakes of changing their story too often, and of caring more about their own enjoyment than their daughter's wishes (yes, that was more of the testimony--how they enjoyed having Mrs. Schiavo around, even if she weren't really there mentally). It was all about them, not their daughter.

So...Mrs. Schiavo had selfish people around her...does that mean her rights should have been denied?